In a study class of our party in Calcutta on July 30,
1969, Comrade Ghosh took up this discussion in answer to some questions raised
by some party workers. At that time, CPI(M), a major constituent of the then
second United Front Ministry of West Bengal, with a view to increasing its party
organization and sphere of influence was coming out with its vile sectarian
politics of using the governmental power and the police in destroying
organizations of other parties, even its allies of the Front including us, the
SUCI. Frequent clashes, bloodshed and killing resulted in rural West Bengal;
cohesion of the Front itself was severely affected. A question arose among some
people and even a few of our comrades whether we should remain in the Front.
With Marxist approach on the United Front politics, Comrade Ghosh dwelled
elaborately on how important the UF was as the instrument of struggle at that
stage of the democratic movement, how and why, while exposing the highly
aggressive policy of CPI(M) a revolutionary party should try, to its best, to
preserve the unity of the Front like the apple of one's eye and such other
questions. Apart from that, he placed invaluable guideline on several aspects of
conducting the activities of the party and its organizations..

Comrades,

Requests have been made in this study class for discussing the
present political situation, especially in the background of the situation that
has developed within the United Front. Certain questions have also been raised
on what should be our mode of functioning within the United Front as well as
outside it. There are also some other questions relating to conduct of
day-to-day organizational work. I shall first place before you my observations
on the United Front. Afterwards I shall discuss some organizational aspects.

Historic necessity of United Front and our approach

To form a correct viewpoint about the United Front and our role in it,
comrades should always keep in mind the basic point that, on the question of
United Front politics, and in that sense on the question of directing a United
Front and a United Front government, the objective and outlook of a true
Marxist-Leninist party is fundamentally different from those of petty bourgeois
social democratic parties. A true Marxist-Leninist party views the United Front
as an indispensable tool to further the cause of the revolutionary struggle of
the masses at a given stage of democratic movement. On the other hand, for the
petty bourgeois social democratic parties of all shades, United Front is a mere
exigency, a tool for serving their petty parliamentary interest and fulfilling
their ambition. Thus, you would easily understand why, on almost every issue, on
the question of fundamental principle, a revolutionary party has to wage a
constant ideological battle with other petty bourgeois parties, even while
fighting together from a common platform, with a common agreed programme.

You know that from their inherent class interest the patrons of the present
capitalist state, the reactionary class and groups -- the jotedars[1] and capitalists -- are all
opposed to us. On the other hand, you would notice that the CPI(M) and the
Naxalite friends sometimes support us and sometimes oppose us on different
issues. Other parties within the United Front also occasionally support us and
at other times oppose us. Most of the times they oppose us ; occasionally, on
some issues, some of them agree with us. For example, on a particular issue the
CPI(M) might agree with us, whereas the others would oppose us. Then, on some
other issue, Bangla Congress, or Forward Bloc, or CPI or RSP would agree with us
and others would oppose us. In any case, opposition to us is the dominating
feature, and in this opposition all the parties within the United Front are at
one against us.

It is true that there are conflicts among all the parties constituting the
United Front. However, in obstructing us, in obstructing the progress of
revolution, a common class interest acts in all of them. So they are all united
against us, even though we are a small party. In the large all-India context,
compared to many parties we are small. Even then, on the question of opposition
to us they are all determined and they do it zealously. Actually it is class
opposition. Hence, our conflict is not only with the Congress, with the
capitalists and the jotedars -- on the ideological plane the conflicts
between us and the CPI(M), between us and the CPI, between us and the Bangla
Congress and the other parties are expressions of a sort of class struggle. At
the same time it is also a fact that a struggle is under way to develop a kind
of understanding between the revolutionaries and other forces for launching
struggle against that very reactionary class which, from among others classes
opposed to the proletariat class interest, is its arch opponent against whom we
are going to wage class struggle after having isolated it from others. Till
these forces are completely isolated from the masses in the process of
developing revolutionary consciousness of the people, this process of building
unity with them will go on, and from revolutionary necessity itself we have to
at least try to maintain this unity.

I already warned that in the present situation attack was going to come
against us, and I asked you to be prepared for it. I told that the going would
not be easy for us in this United Front. During the last United Front government
four of our party comrades were murdered. This time we have already lost four
comrades, another four have barely survived, about fifty have been seriously
injured. In most cases these have resulted from clashes with the jotedars
in league with other parties of the United Front. These are happening because
the other parties, to increase their strength, are supporting the jotedars
with police backing. But you have to clearly realize that we must not entertain
the idea of leaving the United Front just because of all this. Because, in the
present situation the United Front is a historical necessity.

In view of the inadequate strength of every opposition party, not to speak of
the strength of the revolutionary party, to provide single-handedly
organizational and political leadership to the people in their struggle against
reactionary parties and forces, a United Front of all the left and democratic
parties and forces is the only alternative. In other words, so long as the
present stage of democratic movement continues, that is, in the course of
conducting democratic mass movements, till a revolutionary party along with its
mass fronts gains enough strength to co-ordinate and lead all the mass movements
single-handedly towards their historical goal of anti-capitalist socialist
revolution, the United Front is not an exigency, it is an indispensable
instrument of struggle in democratic movement.

Unity-struggle-unity -- basis of United Front politic

From another angle also you must try to fully comprehend the real necessity
of the United Front. In fact, the United Front is a historical and objective
necessity to free the mass mind from the ideological and organizational
influence that the different bourgeois and petty bourgeois parties still have
over the people. A United Front acts as an instrument of struggle to organize
and mobilize in the united movement that section of the people who suffer from
illusion about the petty bourgeois social democratic parties and are still under
their spell ; as a result, on the one hand, the movement gains strength, and at
the same time it offers an opportunity to the vast masses drawn in the vortex of
movement to get more and more acquainted with the revolutionary politics, and be
imbued with it. Of course, coming in direct contact and close proximity with the
higher cultural, moral and ethical standard reflected by the leaders and even
the general workers of a revolutionary party in their day-to-day conduct helps
the people a lot in identifying the revolutionary politics and ideology. You
should remember that the pernicious influence of different varieties of
reactionary bourgeois thinking in society acts as a strong deterrent for the
people to join the revolutionary politics. This is the only objective way to
make people free from this pernicious bourgeois influence and to attract them to
the noble ideology of communism. That is why, while the United Front is but an
exigency to all bourgeois and petty bourgeois parties, to the true revolutionary
party the United Front is an indispensable and invincible instrument to serve
the necessity of advancing the revolutionary struggle.

It is for this reason that a revolutionary party attaches so much importance
to protecting the unity of the United Front as the apple of one's eye, while
conducting at the same time a fierce and intense ideological battle against the
non-revolutionary politics of the other constituents of the United Front.
Conducting united struggle against the common and the main enemy on the basis of
an agreed common minimum programme and with a code of conduct, while unleashing
at the same time within this unity an uncompromising ideological struggle to
resolve the ideological differences between the different parties that are
reflected in the adoption of the programme of movements and its implementation,
and thereby strengthening the unity of the Front more and more -- this is what
is called the principle of unity-struggle-unity. This is the essential
revolutionary principle of United Front politics. Therefore, until, through the
development of very wide and deep mass consciousness, other constituent parties
of the United Front are completely isolated from the people, we do require this
United Front. Stray criticism or expression of discontent by the people here and
there does not mean that in terms of the people's consciousness the roles of
these parties have been exhausted. This I have pointed out in many earlier
discussions. But still there is some confusion among a section of comrades. They
think that the people have no more illusion about these parties, that they have
strong disaffection towards the United Front, that we should immediately come
out of the Front and start opposing it. But this is to be assessed by critical
analysis on the basis of each one's individual experiences, and is to be proved
by concrete incidents. It is to be proved that, in the present situation, if we
oppose the United Front we shall actually enlist the support of the broader
masses and not just the outward appreciation of a handful of people and some
frustrated youths. Only then we may conclude that the United Front is no more an
instrument of the people, that it is an object of their hatred. But the reality
is not like that.

Therefore, the question of our coming out of the United Front does not arise
at present, although it is true that by staying in the Front we shall have to
face more assaults than we did even during the Congress regime. Because, when
the Congress perpetrated police atrocity, all the opposition parties condemned
it in one voice. That was a disadvantage for the Congress. But now when the
CPI(M) perpetrates police atrocity, it does not suffer from the disadvantage,
rather it has become its privilege. You ought to appreciate this difference.
When there was police atrocity during the Congress regime, the opposition
parties, who enjoyed the confidence of the people and who are now in power in
West Bengal, all loudly protested against it. If the police did so much as
firing a single shot, all the opposition parties and forces and people at large
unitedly stood against the police firing ordered by the Congress government. But
today, with the United Front government, the situation is not like that. Among
the people this government is considered a people's government. So if there is
any such police atrocity, while a section of the people would condemn it,
another section would try to find a justification for the government's action.
They would think that there must be some reason behind the police action. From
confusion they would say, 'How can this state of affairs go on ? If things go on
like this the United Front would break down.' They go on discussing like this,
which is creating a problem. When the CPI(M) uses the police, though some people
resent it, among the broader masses the scale of resentment is not like what
happened when the Congress used the police from the seat of power. So, whenever
we see any opposition from the people, we should be careful not to equate its
nature with the resentment against the Congress. The people's attitude now is
more passive. The CPI(M) is not the object of people's fierce opposition, not to
the same extent as the Congress was. Moreover, there is no united opposition
against the CPI(M). Only we oppose, there is no united opposition from others.

Please keep in mind that this passive attitude of the people poses a greater
danger for democratic mass movements. You have to deeply realize the objective
reality in this regard today. For example, if we criticize some anti-people
policies of the government, and if the Congress supports the criticism from
petty political consideration, then the so-called Marxist and leftist parties
immediately raise such a hue and cry as if we are opposing the United Front
itself. So, when we criticize the CPI(M), the Congress support for such
criticism does not help us. Rather, the few who would support us if we alone
opposed it, would go against us if the Congress also opposed it along with us.
They would argue, if the Congress is opposing it, there must be some
justification for the CPI(M)'s stand, because the Congress is reactionary. Such
cheap arguments are now bandied about and they will continue. Why is this so ?
Because even the people who dream of revolution very easily avoid logic. Such
cheap things would not pass in this country if the people, the very people who
would ultimately bring about revolution, had even a little bit of revolutionary
consciousness. Then the CPI(M) would not have had such an easy field. There
would have been an uproar. But the people are getting confused, such things are
simply happening easily. So we have to make our moves very cautiously, lest the
Congress jumped in with us. This is the condition in which we are working. This
is the level of consciousness of the people. It is a very difficult position,
but we have to work amidst these difficulties. We cannot withdraw from mass
movements, nor can we stop our work of sharpening the class struggle.

At the same time you have to realize that there are some advantages of our
remaining within the United Front. At least, if we try we can minimize to some
extent the police excesses by remaining within the Front. Because we are in the
government, if the police commit excesses, we can bring about some restraining
effect from within through our political stand, or at least try to do it.
Although we are fully aware that, given an opportunity, they would put combined
pressure by isolating us. Still there is no denying that because we are in the
United Front and in the Ministry we can exert some restraining power, however
little it may be. Even that little bit we have to do in the interest of mass
movement, because this is also important. Even if the Congress-jotedars-capitalists,
on the one hand, and all the left parties, on the other, are against us, if by
staying within the United Front we can put some pressure to curb the repression
to some extent -- though we may not be able to stop it entirely -- then we shall
use this opportunity to advance the people's struggle.

Along with this you ought to realize and make the people realize, too, that
the struggle that we are conducting is not like the CPI(M)'s tactics of
expanding the parliamentary party behind a smokescreen of revolutionary jargons
; hence we do not have to expand our party under police protection. When we
organize the people to participate in the movements, our cadres will have to
explain to the people that one aspect of our struggle is to try putting pressure
on the government from inside the United Front to control the police, so that it
does not commit excesses, and that the police does not interfere in legitimate
democratic movements. This is the mode of using the parliamentary forum for
extra-parliamentary work. But those comrades who are working in the
extra-parliamentary sphere to organize people's movements, while campaigning for
the movements, their attitude and mental preparation should be to utilize the
pro-United Front mentality of the people at the same time for isolating the
jotedars. On the other hand, along with the effort to restrain the police
assault as far as possible, we are to educate the people that they can advance
along the path of mass movements and towards victory of revolution only by
fighting against police onslaught. They have to be told that struggle with
police backing is no struggle at all. With such struggle one can win privileges,
one can enlarge the party, but this will not lead to revolution. There is bound
to be police oppression against the struggle that revolutionaries wage. They
would not get the backing of the police for the very reason that they are
revolutionaries. At best what can be done is that, with the impact of movements,
by exerting some pressure within the United Front, by creating public opinion
through propaganda, the police atrocity can be somewhat mitigated and in some
incidents here and there they can even be restrained. But, we will wage struggle
only if the police remains inactive -- you can see this type of mock battles are
being fought by the 'heroes' of CPI(M), not by us. If we think about struggle in
this way, it has to be understood that this is a fake struggle. Outwardly it
looks like a valiant struggle, but in reality this is a fight by cowards. This
is the fight of a parliamentary party. Such a fight would never teach us
revolutionary unity, revolutionary consciousness, revolutionary organization, or
strategy and tactics of revolution. So we do not want to shy away from conflict,
what we want to avoid is adventure. The only way to avoid it is to enhance the
revolutionary consciousness of the cadres, to work according to a plan and
programme. From the lowest to the highest levels, the party has to work as one
man, as a soldier according to a definite plan and programme, so that it never
happens that anyone acts according to his personal whims. Even at a moment of
strong passion and excitement one has to act according to the leadership's
directive, according to the leadership's plans.

You see, our politics and the Naxalites' politics are not the same. We do
neither regard the movements conducted under the leadership of our party since
the present United Front has come to power as amounting to revolution, nor as
creation of liberated zones. Our fights are legitimate movements of peasants and
agricultural labourers principally against jotedars on some immediate
issues. In none of these movements have we lapsed into adventurism by turning
violent on our own. In the incidents at Bharatgarh, Valeya, Madhusudanpur in 24
Parganas district -- the three areas about which the newspapers have raised such
a hue and cry -- nowhere has this happened. In reality in each incident there
was police instigation. That is, in all the three cases, there was collusion
between the police and either the RSP, or the CPI(M) or the Bangla Congress. In
each incident, the police and the jotedars were against us.

Take the case of Valeya. In the Valeya village under Canning police station,
we have organizational influence. The CPI(M)'s aim is to oust us
organizationally from Canning, because in the last Assembly elections they got
an inkling of our organizational strength. If there were no such strong waves in
favour of the United Front in West Bengal, we could have ensured the victory of
our party candidate in Canning (West) constituency even against the United Front
candidate. Even a few days before the election date the situation was in favour
of us. But in the last moment the strong pro-UF wave swept the polls. Even in
the midst of this strong wave, our party candidate had a very good share of
votes. As a consequence of this the CPI(M) has taken up the policy of ousting us
from wherever our party is building up new organization. We already had some
organization in that area ; the organization that is growing in new areas is
being viewed by the CPI(M) as encroachment into their bastion. This they would
never allow. So they are bringing in anti-socials from outside and are launching
attacks on our organization with police protection. They used the police for
their petty party interest in such a way that the jotedars, who
generally supported the Bangla Congress, went over to the CPI(M) out of fear.

For, the practice of these jotedars is such that today they may
support one party, but tomorrow if they find that another party has more power
to give them protection, they would shift their allegiance. They come to a party
only to seek protection. They do not come to be active members. If tomorrow the
Congress comes to power again, they would discard the CPI(M) flag and flock to
the Congress. Such is the character of the jotedars. This is their
class character. Under this situation, in the Valeya village the CPI(M)
threatened the peasants belonging to our organization to leave the SUCI and be
members of the CPI(M). They went on telling that these peasants have to enlist
themselves as members of the Krishak Samity,[2] otherwise they would not be allowed to live in the
village. On the one hand, they started to put pressure on the owners of those
benam[3] lands
which the peasants had recovered through movements conducted under the
leadership of our organization, to evict those peasants and, on the other hand,
they tried to forcibly occupy these lands. This started the trouble there. But
you have seen how the press has twisted the reports. At whose behest have they
done this ? They have done it at the behest of the CPI(M), or elsewhere of the
Bangla Congress or in the interest of the RSP. In not a single instance have we
launched an offensive in an adventurous way. In not a single instance has the
police come to our aid. Nowhere have we joined hands with the jotedars
and attacked other parties. Nowhere has it happened that the administration was
behind us, the police was backing us, and with their help and through violence
we have expanded our organization. Nor have we expanded our party by enlisting
the anti-socials and intimidating others, or by recruiting the jotedars.
We did not want to enlarge our party by these means. Because, if we enlarge our
party by recruiting jotedars the party would not belong to us. The
jotedars would not come to the party for ideological reasons ; if any of
them would come because of ideology, that would be an individual solitary affair
; as individuals some of them may come. Like Engels came to the party
individually. He who comes as an individual comes as a revolutionary. He would
not remain a jotedar, would not be considered as a jotedar. He
would then lead peasants' movements against other jotedars. He would
not belong any more to the jotedar class. However, that is not what we
are considering here.

So, this is the objective situation. In this situation, the fissiparous
groups and religious fundamentalists like the Jana Sangh[4] are waiting in the wings. As soon as
whatever attraction the people still have towards left movement evaporates, they
would come out in the open. The ruling CPI(M) leaders are not conscious of this
danger. Throwing to the wind the communist ideology and its quintessence, they
are going on misleading the people with tall talks and sweet words, just as the
Congress did. They are thus pulling down the prestige of communism and maligning
it. But this can continue only for some time. Soon people would realize that
this is a new type of deception. This is like iron fists in velvet gloves. This
practice is going on. They want to spread this type of politics. What else are
they doing ? They are using the police to further their petty party interest.
The police bosses are also thinking that the CPI(M) is the big party ; if they
keep the CPI(M) in good humour, they would be safe and sound. As a result,
irrespective of whether the CPI(M) has any organization at some particular place
or not, whether it is just or unjust, they are following the dictate of the
CPI(M). The police must be given to understand that we do not expect any favour
from them. But what we demand of them is neutrality of action. If we break the
law we do not beg any mercy from anybody. If out of necessity of democratic
movements we have to violate the established law, we would be prepared to face
the punishment. We only demand this much that if we slap somebody, the police
would bring a charge of slapping against us and not of bomb throwing, which they
frequently do. These are excesses. They are equating those who are doing wrong
with those who are resisting the wrong-doing, and are submitting the report
stating that both have indulged in rioting. And between the two they are
arresting members of only the weaker party.

In this context I would like to draw your attention to another point. The
essence of revolutionary purposiveness is that the revolutionaries do not, under
any circumstances, lose sight of their ultimate aim and purpose of struggle, and
placed in any situation or faced with any event they are not caught unawares.
Remember that the ruling class, the vested interests and all the reactionary
forces which provide social support to the capitalist state structure are
against us. No matter how much the CPI(M), the Naxalites and other parties of
our country which call themselves Marxists doubt whether we are a genuine
revolutionary party of the working class or not, the bourgeoisie and those in
the state power have made no mistake in identifying us. Since long they have
gradually been realizing wherein lies real danger for them, and they have been
keeping watch on us. After 1967 they have clearly realized where lies their real
danger. Do not forget that the bourgeoisie brand some parties as posing 'danger'
but they do not really consider them to be dangerous. They do not want to give
publicity to the party which they truly consider dangerous, so that it does not
gain much strength. The bourgeois tactics is to keep the people in the dark
about that party which the bourgeoisie consider to be posing the maximum threat,
till it gains the strength to objectively pose the threat and appears as a
recognized force of movement. Because, if this is revealed, it will have such an
electrifying effect that people would rally round the party, and the bourgeoisie
would have no way to stop it. So they use all their publicity machinery in such
a way that least publicity is given to that party. Unless forced by
circumstances, the bourgeois news media do not give any publicity to that party,
and when they have to, their tactics is only to spread confusion about the
party. The bourgeois tactics is to let the parties, which talk of revolution but
do not pose any threat, play at revolution ; and the bourgeoisie publicize the
latter's mock postures of revolution as highly dangerous actions and at the same
time, making law and order an alibi, they consolidate their repressive
machinery. In this way they frustrate the preparations for revolution by the
genuine revolutionaries. This is a special feature of the bourgeois class
character.

You have witnessed how the publicity of the Naxalbari movement has spread
throughout the country. How has the news spread so quickly ? Has this happened
through their organ Deshabrati ? How much is its circulation ? So the
publicity has not spread through their organ. I would ask my Naxalite friends to
seriously think over it. Who has made Naxalbari a well-known name throughout the
country ? It is the bourgeois press. Why have they done it ? The objective is to
arm the fascist state power in India with more repressive machinery. They do not
give any publicity to the movements which they are truly afraid of, which they
think, if they spread, may lead to revolution. They do not give any publicity to
such revolutionary ideas. They do not publicize such leaders. Check my words
with what is happening. So many parties organize rallies much smaller than ours.
But the press gives big publicity to them. Whatever they say gets published and
conveyed to the people. Hundreds of thousands of people assemble at our
meetings. But do the newspapers give publicity ? They do not. They publish only
the least bit which they are circumscribed to do. About us they publish some
news centring round our differences with other parties within the United Front,
which they twist, and use to incite one party against the other in their attempt
to wreck the United Front. The history of Marxist movements shows that the
bourgeoisie tries first to keep under wraps what it fears -- by not giving it
any publicity. So the revolutionary party carries out what propaganda it can,
basing itself on its strength. Engaging its cadres it raises funds from the
people to carry its ideology to them. And the bourgeois newspapers are full of
fanciful stories of revolution and romantic tales of the pseudo-revolutionaries,
who talk big about revolution and sometimes even carry out adventurous actions.

I am not saying that a revolutionary party never gets any publicity, but it
gets the publicity only to the extent that it can force the bourgeois media to
give it, under pressure of its organizational strength or of the movements,
which stand out so much as a glaring fact before the people that the media
cannot but publish it, which neither the bourgeoisie nor the press can deny. But
even then the bourgeois media try their utmost to minimize its importance, to
belittle it, to give it a twist and to distort it. This is the mode and style of
action of the bourgeois class, of the reactionaries. In this situation our party
stands alone inside the United Front government and also outside it in the
context of the different political parties and forces and the press. But in the
context of staying with the people we are not alone. We are with the people,
though we do not command enough public support. A large section of the people
still do not know much about us or are wrongly informed. May be people are
getting to know somewhat more about our party and perhaps they are getting
attracted to us now, but there is also some confusion along with the attraction.
For instance, on the issue of our stand on gherao there is both
appreciation and deprecation. The appreciation, too, has not stemmed from the
understanding of our party's stand. Many of those who are attracted are not
acquainted with what our party is trying to convey.

Taking advantage of the low level of consciousness of the people the
bourgeois press raised a hue and cry over gherao. Their sole motive was
to confuse the people and malign the progressive labour policy of the United
Front government -- the policy which was first promulgated by our party at the
time of the first UF government in 1967. At that time I had repeatedly and
elaborately explained that we should never give indulgence to any irresponsible
and aggressive action in this matter. Because, we were conscious that the UF
government would have to function within the constitutional framework of the
capitalist system. But the question that arose was, 'How should the
revolutionaries view the issue of constitutionality or legality ?' Surely, they
should approach it only from the point of view of people's interest. I had then
explained that every student of ethics and jurisprudence knows that in this
exploitative social system, what is legal need not always be legitimate,
justified, moral and humane. Similarly, everything illegal in the eye of law
need not be illegitimate, unjustified, immoral and inhumane. On the basis of
this outlook we proclaimed that the task of the United Front government should
be to encourage all legitimate and democratic movements of the people. With this
aim and objective, the United Front government will, on the one hand, ensure
that police do not interfere in the legitimate, democratic movements of the
people. This would give a breathing space to the legitimate, democratic
struggles of the people, which were always ruthlessly crushed by the erstwhile
Congress government. On the other hand, along with this struggle and in the
background of this struggle, we should try to courageously enact new legislation
and amend old laws in conformity with the interest of the people. With this
outlook, if the United Front government, with courage, conviction and firmness,
can bring in reforms that are possible within the constitutional framework, if
it can eradicate corruption, control the bureaucracy and create a congenial
atmosphere for the growth and development of legitimate democratic movements,
then that would be an act in the people's interest. But taking advantage of the
excesses committed by the other constituents of the UF in the name of gherao,
the circles with vested interest are wrongly interpreting and wilfully
distorting this policy.

In fact, what has been taken by most people as our stand is not what our
party has said, but what the bourgeois propaganda has been publicizing as our
stand. This has happened because we do not have the requisite organizational
network among the vast masses of people, we do not have the necessary propaganda
machinery. Compared to the need of sufficiently expanding the organization of
the party so as to maintain contact with the vast masses of people, we are still
weak. This lack of required strength to lead the revolution, that is the
relative weakness of the revolutionary party, is today a main problem before the
revolutionary working class movement and democratic mass movements in India.
Whether we are stronger than some party, or we have greater mobilizing power
than some other party or whether in such and such areas we have conducted more
militant class struggles than other parties -- all these are not at all relevant
here. The reality is that even in West Bengal we lack the necessary strength. We
have no reason to be complacent about how much stronger we are than this or that
party. Like philistine social democratic leaders we cannot be proud that one of
us is a Minister in the government. We should not have this mentality. Even if
one day we become stronger than those left parties, which are now bigger than
us, we have to keep in mind that we would be still a long way off from directing
the mass organizations of our country on a revolutionary course, or from firmly
establishing the revolutionary ideology among the people. It ought to torment us
that we are still small compared to our task. This torment shall not lead us to
despair ; it shall motivate us to speedily overcome the difficulties within the
limits of the objective situation and to gain that strength. There should not be
any lapse in our effort. We know that even with our efforts, revolution may not
come. Because, many factors conducive to revolution, many developments,
contribute to the success of revolution ; hence if we fail, even after best of
our efforts, to accomplish revolution, then historically the failure was
inevitable. At least we would not be blamed for that. History would be witness
to the fact that we spared no effort. Our struggle is to ensure that nothing is
wanting in our efforts.

To free ourselves from the shortcomings and defects we ought to have a clear
perception of the complex situation of today. Often we are victims of a casual
and stereotyped attitude. We have to keep in mind that there must be planning so
that we can effectively and speedily carry out our mass contact activities and
the daily routine works. We must see to it that we carry our distinct political
line to the people in a planned way in order to educate and organize them and
thereby also elevate our own ideological-political-cultural standard and
revolutionary character. Keeping this in view I shall now discuss some concrete
organizational questions.

Every work connected with and conducive to revolution is a kind of struggle

A comrade has asked whether stereotyped day-to-day party activities can help
us attain revolutionary character. It is not clear in the first place what the
comrade has meant by stereotyped activities. If he means carrying out routine
party work, like selling party literature, regularly also through door-to-door
approaches, participating in street collection, putting up posters, visiting
party office, giving company to other comrades at party centres, attending party
classes -- if the comrades do all these in a stereotyped fashion, without
establishing public contact, neither associating with people around them nor
associating themselves with the democratic movements of the people, on
individual as well as collective basis involving all party comrades in a
locality, if they do not carry out political-ideological campaign among the
masses through door-to-door approach and personal contact, if they do not have a
clear-cut political programme, a well-defined method of campaign, if they do not
have contemplation or make any attempt to build mass organizations with those
people, that would certainly not lead to attainment of a genuine revolutionary
character. Our comrades should bear in mind that day-to-day programme of
entrenching themselves in a tenacious political campaign, keeping close contact
with the people and thereby intensifying the campaign, chalking out plans to
build up mass organizations, participating in each and every democratic mass
movement as it grows, and making plans and directing every effort towards
building up mass movements -- all these are a kind of struggle and these are
related to a particular stage for developing required organization for
democratic and revolutionary movement on the basis of adequate consciousness.
Such struggles, too, are revolutionary in character.

The struggle that the revolutionaries conduct does not necessarily mean a
particular form of struggle, that is, the form of direct confrontation,
barricade fights or pitched battles. Because, such forms of struggle do not
materialize in a day ; and when they come, as they sometimes do at the height of
militant mass movements, they do not go on continuously for a long time. A
revolutionary organization capable of conducting such a protracted struggle that
will eventually transform into one for seizure of power -- such an organization
takes the revolutionaries a long time to build up. The revolutionaries have to
wage a sustained and painstaking struggle, every day at that, by co-ordinating
three tasks -- the struggle to build up party organization, on the one hand,
and, on the other, organizations for conducting democratic mass movements and
thirdly, propagating the revolutionary ideology.

Now, the situation today is not such that we are starting the battle for
revolution right away, nor is there a direct fight with total involvement of the
people against the police or anyone else. Besides, movements like the ones that
Calcutta witnessed on issues like tram fare-rise, or call for general strike or
on other issues -- what we call spirited combats -- do not come about
frequently. From the comrade's question it appears to me that he thinks how can
they build up revolutionary character without such struggles. Well, I ask you :
Is it possible for the revolutionaries to develop this kind of struggle every
day and continuously at that ? Has this ever happened in the revolutionary
history of any country ? Then how do the revolutionaries build up their
character ?

Party workers should realize that revolutionary struggle has so many stages
of development. It has different stages of growth. At the very initial stage,
when thoughts of revolution first germinate in the society arising out of the
human yearning for freedom from exploitation, these thoughts stir up the people.
Gradually, one by one, people get influenced by these thoughts and inspired they
come forward to build up a revolutionary party. When such is the objective
condition in a country at the initial stage of revolutionary struggle, do the
handful of revolutionaries start the revolutionary uprising right then ? Are
those few revolutionaries to start firing at whomsoever they may encounter, or
finish their revolutionary programme by shooting down a few policemen ? No,
certainly not. Then how to begin the struggle in such a situation? Before the
revolution, through long and painstaking struggle they have to build up the
requisite organizational groundwork for revolution. And indeed this is an
arduous struggle.

It would be a grave mistake to think that revolutionary struggle means only
armed insurrection or barricade fight, and that the various forms of struggle
the revolutionaries have perforce to wage to build up the revolutionary
organization or to pave the way for armed uprising are not revolutionary
struggles. Such trend of thinking arises from petty bourgeois romanticism,
pessimism, frustration and despair. When frustration, despair and pessimism take
root in the society, that section of the leading youths who lack comprehensive
revolutionary consciousness, who do not understand the complex process of
bringing about revolution, that is, who do not realize how, by co-ordination of
countless struggles through a myriad of complex processes the cherished
revolutionary struggle takes shape -- such cadres who lack the revolutionary
consciousness suffer from desperation and restlessness, thinking that nothing is
being achieved. As I said, they think that only a particular form or pattern of
struggle is revolutionary.

They have failed to understand that it is wrong to think that only one form
and pattern of struggle is revolutionary and the rest are not. They ought to
realize that all struggles conducive to revolution are, in fact, revolutionary
struggles. The ideological campaign to build up the party organization is also
an arduous revolutionary struggle. It needs a lot of patience to conduct this
struggle. Because, winning this battle is often much more difficult than
fighting street battles. The struggle to win over to the revolutionary side one
individual after another amidst the pervasive atmosphere of frustration, or the
struggle to establish the supremacy of the revolutionary ideology over the
opposing ideas is not any easier than the armed struggle which the
revolutionaries conduct. For example, in post-revolution China, see how complex
the revolutionary struggle has become, though the question is no longer of
overthrowing the ruling bourgeoisie ; there is no question of fighting against
the army, police and state machinery. What an intense ideological struggle they
have unleashed among themselves through the Cultural Revolution. This Cultural
Revolution is not only more painstaking and arduous than the victorious
revolutionary battle conducted directly against the army of Ziang Ky-shek, but
it is much more complex.

Hence, revolutionary struggle does not mean only one particular form of
struggle. We now gradually use the word struggle in such a way that we do not
consider the day-to-day work of the party as struggle. We think that ideological
struggles, such as bringing out the party organ, taking it to the people,
conducting polemical exchanges and revolutionary ideological propaganda against
counter-ideas, are not struggles, are not battles ; these we think to be mere
routine work. Hence the pattern of our work also becomes stereotyped.

Think of the thousand and one types of technical work that the comrades
manning our party office have to do every day. These are such vitally important
functions, that if they are left unattended even for a day, the overall
functioning of the party would be seriously hampered -- there would be a gap in
maintaining link and communication and a disruption in the system of conducting
the daily party activities ; there would be general disorder. Same is the case
with running party centres and party communes. There has to be regular
maintenance, attention has to be paid to the health of each member, their daily
necessities have to be taken care of ; there are various daily chores and
routine work. Apparently all these works look very uninspiring, ordinary and
boring. It may seem that there is nothing revolutionary about them. But really
it is not so. Take for instance, all the routine activities that need to be done
for the daily running of the party press, the regular and timely publication of
the party literature, their circulation and despatch. If these are not done, the
party would be bereft of a vital and powerful instrument of ideological
campaign. Such is the importance of these works. They are all part and parcel of
the party's revolutionary work ; they have to be conducted in a way that is
conducive to revolution and with revolutionary purposiveness. But viewed in
isolation and detached from the total revolutionary struggle, all these types of
technical work would seem to be very ordinary, unimportant and mere monotonous
routine.

It requires a very high degree of revolutionary consciousness to carry out
such duties for days and years together with a happy and peaceful mind and with
revolutionary integrity, devotion, dedication and sense of purpose. Because of
lack of adequate revolutionary consciousness many comrades have a mistaken
notion that these routine works are rather unimportant trifles and not as
important as building up mass struggles or mass movements. Such a notion is
totally wrong. Rather, it is often seen that those who can carry out such
so-called trifling work with ability, they can discharge the party
responsibilities better than many others.

In this connection I would like to add one or two important points. One
important trait among others, or an acid test, of a high communist character is
that whenever he takes up any work, he does it with such devotion,
meticulousness and flawlessness that we hardly find any parallel. This applies
to all types of work, big or small. He performs each and every work with utmost
care, concentration and perfection. Even in doing small things like sweeping a
room clean, he does it with a creative mind. Because, to a revolutionary no work
is mere trifle. So I say, do not carry out any work in a casual or non-serious
manner. Because, if you do not do every work with all seriousness, thinking it
to be unimportant, then not only will the work be spoilt, but the process of
developing integration in your method of thinking would be impeded. A casual
attitude is detrimental to development of integrity of character. So when you
take up any task, small or big, apply your whole mind to it and try to do it
with perfection.

Moreover, we all know that party communes or party centres are also a kind of
party organization, though of a different character. So, running these centres
well from every point of view as party organizations should be the common
concern of all the members, both male and female. But most often it is found
that the household chores, which have to be done for daily living are attended
to by the female comrades only, even when these cause unbearable hardship or
strain. Others do not share such work unless compelled to do so. I do not know
whether the party leaders have given any serious thought to this problem for a
correct and rational solution.

Another point has also drawn my attention ; I am talking about the leaders,
not about the general comrades. Some leading comrades, who are of sound health
and are not so aged, have developed a peculiar habit of always asking the junior
comrades of petty services, like bringing a glass of water, which they could
themselves do very well and ought to do. But they do not do it, they ask a
junior comrade to do it. It is true that the junior comrades do not mind it.
However, that is their part. But the leaders on their part should not be averse
to doing this sort of work as a matter of habit and practice. Otherwise, this
bad habit will not harm them alone ; others also may easily fall victim over
time. Let me now resume the discussion on routine work.

Importance of painstaking political campaign even amidst despair all around

You must realize that the day-to-day work I have already mentioned about is
not mere routine work. It requires a lot of concentration, ability to provide
leadership, organizational ability, theoretical ability, determination and
doggedness. When a revolutionary fever seizes the people, when a tide of mass
movements sweeps over the land, when fights against oppression are all around,
people agitate and jump into the struggle ; even those who never wanted to
participate in struggle join the fray, and people rally in thousands and
thousands in the struggle. There is no dearth of people in the forefront of
struggle. These struggles, which some party workers consider to be the only form
of revolutionary struggle, also draw in their folds people who do not have the
slightest revolutionary consciousness. Because, a fever of revolution and fight
grips the country. But when there is a lull, when the reactionaries are on the
offensive, but real resistance movements of the people cannot be built up, then
how should we build up the movements by organizing the people ? In that adverse
situation you have to keep your cool and through analysis, polemical discussions
and propaganda, clearly expose before the people the class character of the
opponents' ideology and propaganda and show how they are confusing the people
through such propaganda, tall talks and revolutionary verbiage. Our task then is
to defeat the propaganda of the opponents through such painstaking struggle and
build up the organization by convincing the people. This is a much more complex
struggle. Amidst frustration and despair all around, when there is no fervour of
movement, when the situation seems hopeless, at that time carrying out this
struggle voluntarily only on the strength of revolutionary consciousness is
possible only for a dedicated, class conscious worker. One cannot do it if one
does not have revolutionary consciousness. It demands that one has to stay with
the people and carry out the routine work, participate in the routine programmes
; one cannot do it without the steadfastness born of revolutionary
consciousness.

Many do not like this work of regular campaign, attending political meetings,
selling the party literature and establishing mass contact through door-to-door
approach. These do not appeal to them. They think that let some action happen,
they would then clinch the issue ; in other words, they would somehow complete
the task of revolution within two, three days and then for five days they would
relax. Why do they think in this way ? Because, they cannot effectively convey
the party's political approach, nor can they effectively build up the struggle,
they cannot stay with the people and attract them to revolutionary ideology
through discussions and propaganda, cannot enthuse them, cannot build up new
organizations, cannot draw the youth into these organizations and wean them away
from criminal activity or extremist ideology. As a result, they start thinking
that nothing much is happening. They begin to feel that unless some precipitate
action takes place, revolution will not materialize. But have they ever thought
how this action would take place ? Does it mean that all the advanced cadres who
are here should somehow get hold of some firearms and go out on the streets for
a confrontation ? What good would that do ? They cannot make the slightest dent
into the state machinery. Those who are thinking in this way have not understood
that the revolution that we cherish, the battle that we want to wage is a class
war, a people's war. This protracted people's war can be waged only if a major
section of the people are organized under the banner of revolutionary ideology
and are imbued with revolutionary political consciousness. This protracted
people's war can never grow out of sporadic and spontaneous popular outbursts
which flare up from time to time, but which lack the conviction of revolutionary
political ideology or revolutionary theory. This can only happen if we can
correctly guide the spontaneous movements that develop in the country based on
the people's discontent, and thereby imbue the people with revolutionary
consciousness and gradually build up the people's instruments of struggle.

But are the movements in our country of that nature ? What types of movements
are going on in our country ? Take the case of the food movement. Thousands of
people rallied and participated in the movement and fought for the cause ; yet
afterwards they are lost to the movement. Why does this happen ? Because, when
the people jumped into the movement they did not do so on the basis of a
revolutionary consciousness ; they did not possess the consciousness, patience,
dedication and mental make-up to pursue the day-to-day struggle to build up the
revolutionary party, and to bring about revolution. But all the same, they did
come in thousands to plunge into the battle. The climate of movement that
developed based on a particular issue drew the people into the movement. But
such a movement involving thousands of people does not develop often. When
resentment builds up in the people, it eventually bursts out on any issue,
whether there is any leadership or not. Because of the lack of revolutionary
political leadership and lack of political consciousness within these movements,
these spontaneous outbursts subside and peter out after a while. Another period
of frustration follows. The people groan under oppression till they again burst
out in another spell of spontaneous agitation. All the mass movements witnessed
in our country, except a very few, are of this character. Under continuing
oppression, the patience of the people eventually gets exhausted and an upheaval
comes like a tide, but neither under the guidance of a revolutionary ideological
leadership, nor embodying revolutionary political consciousness. And the
political parties who exercise leadership over these movements through
committees, do not keep track as to where all these people come from to join the
movements, and where they all disappear afterwards. Time and again our party has
sought to point out to others who combine in a United Front to lead a movement,
that they do not steer the movement like generals, rather they call for movement
from above, and then court arrest, go to prison and be out of action. On the
contrary the task ought to have been, along with the call for movement, to
organize those who want to join the movement into people's committees, and to
bring these committees in the position of leadership and conduct the movement
through these committees. At the same time, within the movement, let the
political-ideological struggle between the parties go on. Without such
ideological struggle the political consciousness of the people cannot be
sharpened. Because, the parties that come forward to unitedly lead the movement
do not share the same attitude towards movement. Some do bungling within the
agitation. It is the people who suffer brutal repression, who die in police
firing ; the parties campaign against this and later capitalize on it during the
hustings, win electoral victories, get garlanded and become ministers or occupy
positions of power. This is the attitude of most of the parties about movement.

Not spontaneous, sporadic agitational movement,
but organized, conscious, protracted movement is the need of the hour

On the other hand, a genuine revolutionary party wants that through such
agitational movements a measure of political consciousness of the people grows,
that the political leadership of the people develops to an extent and the
people's committees develop as instruments of struggle with political
consciousness. Such people's committees would not be permanent bodies. In each
movement, they would grow maintaining some level of consciousness, and then
would disappear after the movement is over. Thus in each movement, if the
people's committees grow with some revolutionary consciousness, the people would
learn to guide the movement themselves, and to build up the revolutionary
leadership. When the people are in the midst of movement, they may not have the
wisdom, but they do have excellent fighting fervour and clarity of outlook
regarding fighting. They do not become victims of the vices which easily creep
into the leaders, penetrate into the parties. Along with this fervour, if they
get equipped with political consciousness and wisdom they can themselves discern
how far the movement could be pushed ahead and how to conduct them. When they
are able to do it they can also see which of the parties in the leadership are
truly guiding them ideologically and morally, are providing support to their
plans. As this realization dawns, the pseudo-revolutionary parties will be
isolated from the people. This is the approach of our party towards democratic
mass movements.

But such movements do not grow at our bidding. It does not grow just because
a revolutionary party wants it to grow. Our Naxalite friends are raising the
slogans, 'political power comes out of the barrel of a gun', 'peasants create
liberated areas in the countryside'; they are exhorting the people to fight and
are thinking that revolution has started. I ask them to seriously consider
whether revolution has already started and whether it is possible to bring about
revolution in this way. See what is happening in reality. Revolution is reduced
to fiery talks in coffee houses and street corners, and a handful of people have
spread out to some remote countryside and are carrying out some armed actions.
But that, too, in how many places and to what extent. If the Naxalite claim of
popular support were true and if that big were their organizational base, if
only five of them could organize the struggle in each locality, then by now
peasant revolution would have swept across the whole of West Bengal and large
areas of India. But is that happening ? Sparks are coming out of fiery debates
and the fire of peasant revolution is aflame among students in university
campuses, in college premises and clashes of rival students' unions. But in
reality peasant revolution is not to be seen anywhere. Because, revolution is
not such an easy affair. We have differences of opinion with them on the
question of peasant revolution, which they are advocating. We hold that the
stage of revolution in India is socialist revolution. What I am saying is that
even if they have to carry out peasant revolution, they have to go through
prolonged painstaking work, which some of the comrades call boring routine work.
We have to carry out ceaseless and intense ideological struggle to expose all
the bourgeois ideological traits and prejudices which have penetrated into the
workers' and peasants' movements and are leading them astray. We must hold
before the people not a vague but a clear ideological conception. You must
realize that mere chanting of 'we want revolution' does not reflect any
conception of revolutionary ideology, nor do slogans like 'we must fight',
'leadership would grow out of struggle'. What is the nature of the struggle, who
are the friends and who are the foes, its myriad complex processes, when does it
take the form of direct confrontation, when does it retreat, in other words what
form does it take at what stage -- regarding all these clear conceptions will
have to be developed. You have to remember that at a certain stage the struggle
takes the form of campaign work at that time the task is to recruit cadres, to
carry out propaganda work, to bring out party organs, to build up the party
organization. This is one stage of the struggle. And in the course of carrying
out these tasks, when the organization gains some strength, based on issues of
movements, the revolutionary party steps up the struggle to direct agitational
movements against the exploiting class. Through these movements the party
exposes before the people the real character of the state, its coercive
machinery and the power of the instruments of exploitation. At the same time it
exposes the attitudes of the other parties in this struggle, the parties who
talk about socialism and indulge in rhetoric on revolution. Because so long as
the people cannot grasp which is the correct line through ideological struggle,
the way for revolution cannot be cleared.

Let me illustrate. We, the SUCI, stand for socialism, so does Bangla Congress
and Forward Bloc. Even Jawaharlal Nehru had been a protagonist of socialism.
Again, the CPI(M) also advocates people's democratic revolution for bringing in
socialism. The CPI and Naxalite friends also talk of people's democratic
revolution. They argue that the three models of peoples' democratic revolution
have little in common. That is, the same people's democratic revolution has
three incarnations. Even if we accept the people's democratic revolution to be
the stage of revolution in India, then which one of the three models is the
correct one ? The people have to be deeply involved in the struggle to find out
which one is right and which one is wrong. And as they meditate over it, grapple
with it, and acquire the ability to distinguish between what is right and what
is wrong, the correct way to revolution would become clear.

In fact, bypassing the ideological struggle nothing can be achieved. 'Do
something, whatever you can ; we are with you' -- if this be the attitude of the
people, the country faces a bleak prospect. The inevitable consequence of this
approach is the kind of struggle you have witnessed in the country from time to
time. Not just now, from as far back as 1919, workers of this country have gone
on strike and have sacrificed their lives, so many people have embraced the
gallows, so many barricade fights against the police have been put up in
Calcutta, surges of democratic mass movements have come, so many times people
braved brutal oppression by police and military let loose on the movements. But
what has been the net result ? The condition of the people has worsened day by
day. We have not been able to advance a bit. And now some people are despondent
that nothing at all is happening. There were all those fights, army was
deployed, tanks rolled down the streets, people fought pitched battles with the
police, so many times Calcutta experienced black-outs. Then why this despair
again that nothing is going right, no struggle is coming up? Because, these
struggles had the same character -- sporadic and spontaneous. As oppression
increases, once in a while people burst out in movements, whether they have the
correct realization or not. But because correct leadership is not there,
organization is not there, because the people do not have the patience to
analyse and understand, the movements cannot be freed from the character of
spontaneity. After each movement a wave of frustration engulfs the people. Yet,
the party which can provide the correct leadership does not yet have the
strength to lead the movements, to control the movements, to guide them along
the correct path. If it could do that, it could educate the people about the
correct tactics and ultimate objective of the struggle, free them of frustration
and steadily advance towards the goal of anti-capitalist socialist revolution by
building up the people's own instruments of struggle ; when necessity demanded
it could also retreat in the movement, teaching the people why was this
necessary, that the cause of revolution would be harmed without this retreat.
For a bigger battle in future it is sometimes necessary to retreat, so as not to
waste the strength of the movement ; retreat is also a form of struggle. In
military strategy there is both advance and retreat in battles. When two armies
are fighting against each other, does one make continuous advance until the
other is totally defeated ? No, an army advances but when necessity demands it
also retreats ; both advance and retreat are a form of struggle. When it
retreats an army does it in a strategic way just the way it does when it
advances. In the same way a cold war which precedes the actual war -- that is,
creating a favourable climate for war, preparing the popular opinion in favour
of the war -- that is also a kind of war. Without this no battle can be fought.
It is the working class, the people of the country who supply the men in the
battlefront everything that the latter need -- the food, the arms and
ammunitions. So unless the people can be induced to give them support, the
soldiers cannot fight for more than a few days. So the war-mongers have to
create a war psychosis before the war. Do you think that this is necessary only
for the reactionaries, the war-mongers ? And the revolutionaries need have no
concern in this regard ? Think of a situation where a revolutionary party has
been able to rally a large number of workers and peasants to wage a protracted
revolutionary battle against the state power, imbibing them with revolutionary
consciousness. But even then the usual question that comes up is that at the
time of revolution what would be that number. Say, one, two or five millions,
isn't it ? But out of a population of 800 millions, if at least 500 million
people do not back the struggle, if they do not view those who are actually
waging this struggle as their own people and that it is their task to extend
their help to the struggle in every possible way, then revolution cannot be
accomplished. If the majority of the people look at the struggle not as their
own but as the concern of a particular party only and that they need not get
involved in such botheration, then even the five million, reared for this
struggle, they cannot make any dent into the capitalist system. Even before they
can lay a finger upon it, they will be finished off. One indiscreet act in the
name of revolution -- without building up people's opinion in favour of it --
would wipe off the fruits of hard struggle of twenty years to rear five million
revolutionaries. So we must have a clear understanding about the ways of
struggle, its twists and turns.

What is meant by recognition of necessity

A revolutionary should bear in mind that he is in the midst of struggle
wherever he may be. Struggle is the very mode of his existence. He exists always
with revolutionary consciousness. What is this consciousness ? It is this that
he has realized that the question of his own development, his own emancipation
is inextricably linked with the question of social development and social
progress. If social progress gets obstructed, if reaction sets in in social
environment, his development is also impeded ; its shadow is cast on his family
too. He cannot earn his freedom in isolation from the society. To try that way
of liberation of self is the way of the spiritualists ; that is not the way of
the revolutionaries, not of those who have chosen the path of struggle. Another
point is important in this context. When we say that the interest of one's
individual development, individual uplift, the entire gamut of one's interest is
linked with the interest of social progress -- its true realization does not
come unless we understand, in a class-divided society which is the leading or
vanguard class among the exploited masses, the question of development,
advancement and emancipation of which class is inalienably linked with the
progress of the society as a whole, with the advancement of production, of
science, of culture. If we understand this, we shall also understand that,
because the question of individual emancipation of every person in the society
is linked with the question of emancipation of that particular class, is linked
with the question of struggle of that particular class and the leadership of
that struggle, a revolutionary is part and parcel of that class struggle which
leads the society towards establishment of the hegemony of that very class.

In the context of the situation in our society today this is the recognition
of necessity. Recognition of necessity does not mean the necessity of an
individual's maintenance, the necessity of employment, the necessity of meeting
the needs of the family. This is not the necessity of the revolutionaries. To a
revolutionary necessity means the real necessity of every individual, the real
necessity of the whole society, the real necessity of the progressive
revolutionary class, the necessity which gives rise to a social movement. If a
man wants to be free from individualism, from prejudices and narrow-mindedness,
from self-centredness, from vulgar impulses and passions, all of which are
present in him, he cannot do so by struggling in isolation, on individual
capacity. Because these arise out of the influence of the present social system,
out of the impact of class thinking in a class-divided capitalist society. Since
the question of advancement of production and liberation of
science-art-literature-culture from the grip of capitalist exploitation is
inextricably linked with the question of emancipation of the working class --
the class historically placed to free the entire society by waging struggle
against all these -- the question of emancipation of the individual is also
linked up with the question of emancipation of the working class. The
realization of this necessity is the realization of the necessity of
emancipation of the individual. And the recognition of this necessity transforms
an individual into a revolutionary.

How does a revolutionary exist in the society ? He exists as a conscious
entity in the society, who has correctly comprehended the true nature of the
contradictions and conflicts in the whole social and material world and has
grasped which contradiction, meaning contradiction between which two opposite
forces, determines the course of progress. In the period when contradiction
between imperialism and feudalism, on the one hand, and national freedom
struggle, on the other, was determining the course of progress, consciousness of
individual liberty, of individual development and emancipation, the real
necessity was realization of identity with the interest of freedom struggle. In
that period recognition of the necessity of the country's independence reflected
the realization of his true necessity, his correct social consciousness, his
correct class consciousness. Again in today's society the conflict between the
capitalist system on the one side and the oppressed class, on the other, that
is, between the capitalist class and the working class is the main conflict, or,
in other words, the principal contradiction in this society centring round which
individual consciousness and individuality revolve. In this principal struggle
the determining factor stipulating social progress is the victory of the working
class -- the replacement of the bourgeois democracy with proletarian democracy,
establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat over production, art,
literature, culture, morality, in short in every sphere, in place of bourgeois
dictatorship. Under these circumstances when this recognition of individual
necessity merges with the recognition of necessity of emancipation of the
working class, one becomes a revolutionary.

Hence, when a revolutionary exists in the society, it means he exists amidst
the struggle against the bourgeois class and the existing social system. This
conflict is not confined to the sphere of political and economic struggle, it
relates to every other sphere, at home and outside home, to
culture-morality-tastes and everything else. For a revolutionary, what is
conducive to revolution, conducive to struggle for the emancipation of the
working class, what is conducive to the struggle to free production, art,
literature, science from bourgeois preconception that constitutes his sense of
appreciation, taste and aesthetics. A revolutionary's likings or aesthetic sense
is totally incompatible with the sense of appreciation and realization of a
bourgeois, with his culture, his sense of beauty, with his idea of family, of
love, his sense of freedom of sex. Such is the correct position of a
revolutionary.

Such then is the mode of existence of a revolutionary. He exists in the midst
of fierce struggle. In the ambit of such struggles there are some routine works.
Only the class conscious workers who have a clear vision of the ultimate purpose
can go through the drudgery of routine work. The revolutionaries have to work
over a protracted period in accordance with a plan in order to realize this
ultimate purpose. If their style of work is not disciplined and is unpurposive,
they cannot smash the well-knit bourgeois state machine. We have only faced the
police, but remember that ultimately we shall have to confront the army and the
military of the organized state, which are equipped with the most modern
weaponry. Before that final battle, to rally the necessary people's power and to
develop the organization capable of waging protracted revolutionary fights,
revolutionaries have to wage struggle within and outside home and within
themselves, in the spheres of ideology, ethics, aesthetics and tastes, in the
realm of art, literature and culture. That is why Mao Zedong said that before
any revolution, the conducive cultural revolution has to be started. The
significance of this is that when one class wants to overthrow another class, be
that class the progressive revolutionary class or the reactionary class, it has
to carry out protracted campaign and struggle in the ideological-political
field, before it can take up the battle to overthrow the other class. The main
and ultimate struggle cannot be won bypassing this. And this struggle is
arduous. When there is no surge of movement, no fever of struggle gripping the
people, only a conscious revolutionary can remain engaged in the difficult
struggle to build up the organization, to attend to routine work day in and day
out on the basis of dedication and burning conviction. I have already pointed
out how easily people -- even those who have never been in this long struggle to
build up revolutionary consciousness, who do not have the strength to undertake
the struggle of carrying out painstaking routine work day after day -- are
easily drawn into a movement when it takes the form of direct confrontation,
what we often mistakenly believe to be the only form of struggle, and hold that
to carry out daily routine work is no struggle at all. But if you examine, you
would realize that to carry out routine work for a long period is more arduous a
struggle. It requires a strength of character, a dedication to ideology, and the
ability to adequately understand the whole situation.

So you can see that to carry out routine work is an essential prerequisite
for building revolutionary struggle in the country, and this is also a form of
struggle. So the appropriate critique of the party work would be to judge
whether this work is carried out only on a set pattern, or whether there is a
plan to establish regular contact with the masses. In this process of carrying
out the work on the basis of contact with the masses, contradictions will ever
arise ; there would be turmoil ; it would demand innovative approach in building
up the movement in conformity with reality. Movement does not mean only slogans,
processions, meetings, barricade fights, confrontation with the police and
seizure of power. These are all forms of movement, pertaining to particular
stages of organizational development, particular stages of development of
consciousness. What form the movement would take and when a particular form will
have to be changed into another would depend on a number of factors -- the stage
of organizational development, the level of consciousness, the character of
people's participation, the nature of assaults by the ruling class. Discussions,
debates, polemics, convincing people, ideological fight against opposing
viewpoints, organizing unions, running the college unions, conducting political
classes, sticking posters, making door-to-door approaches, carrying on
protracted and painstaking discussions with the people to establish the
supremacy of the revolutionary ideology over the counter-ideologies -- all these
are various and complex forms of struggle. The revolutionary party worker
engaged in this struggle does not carry out this work according to his
individual mood and whim. He does this work in accordance with the collective
decisions happily and with individual initiative along with the collective.

Combine individual initiative with the collective

It is a very difficult task to combine individual initiative with the
collective effort. The individualistic trend and bent of mind which we want to
fight out is of such nature that because of this, a person having some kind of
realization about revolution, even if it is a bit superficial, sometimes creates
a mind to join the struggle ; but what is found in that case is that because of
that factor, he wants to go by his own notions, by his own ideas. On the one
hand, he wants to fight for the revolution, and, on the other hand, he cannot
free himself from his individualistic trait, his ultra sense of freedom. He is
not aware that the correct realization of the necessity of this struggle
includes the realization that he has to free himself from the individualistic
trait and ultra sense of freedom. Struggles conducted in an individualistic way
can never lead to the desired goal. Because, that is not the product of
collective planning. That is why the Marxist revolutionaries approach the
struggle both individually and collectively. That is their attitude. Because, an
individual alone cannot bring about revolution. So the revolutionaries have to
learn how to fight collectively. When someone is alone in organizing people in a
locality, we find that if he has a fighting zeal and an inspiration to
sacrifice, he does the work very well among the people under his own leadership.
Because there he is the undisputed leader, his individuality is not wounded, it
does not come in conflict with another's, he does not feel humiliated, his ego
is not injured. But when he has to work according to a plan with other comrades
with parallel personality, it often happens that there arises conflict among the
different personalities, work is hampered, many complications arise. So one has
to learn how to work not only according to one's own plan, but also according to
plans formulated by others, voluntarily and happily. And to learn it one has to
free oneself from individualistic traits and personal whims. But how can one
learn it ? How can one free oneself ? This can be learnt only by developing the
habit of submitting to the collective while working together with others. We
sometimes hear a comrade argue that he does not like at all this process of
working collectively. He likes to be simply told what to do and then left alone.
He would fulfil the task alone, by himself. What a strange claim ! As if he
possesses such power that he can conquer the whole world ! But no one has ever
conquered the whole world by himself. Even the Almighty[5] could not do it, what of others !

So the main point is that everyone has to conduct the struggle being part and
parcel of the collective. Routine work, which is an indispensable part of
revolutionary struggle, teaches the cadres of revolution to have patience, to
acquire the habit of working remaining within the collective. It helps them to
fight out the individualistic traits, the ego, which constantly tend to deceive
them, to lead them astray. Rational judgement in each of us directs us to one
course, but our individualistic trend tends to obstruct that course and
misdirect us. This is the contradiction which is going on within each of us.
This struggle of the two opposing forces within each of us is also a reflection
of the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in the present
society. In this situation one has to either convince the collective to accept
one's point of view, or happily abide by the collective decision even if it goes
against one's own view. If this frame of mind is not there then even while
moving together a feeling of grudge and discontent will grow in oneself, one
will nurture the very bourgeois sense of individual entity within oneself which
manifests itself in the form of individualism, ultra sense of freedom and in the
form a deceptive feeling of one being a person having a strong independent
temperament. One cannot free oneself from prejudice, sense of exclusive
individual entity or ego only through subjective thinking or theoretical
discourse. Remember that an individual's conscious entity emerges out of
conflicts and contradictions with the external world and it exists in the midst
of contradictions. When he finds the correct path by grasping the true character
of the contradictions and if he patterns his activities following this path, he
can exert influence over the external world and at the same time develop
himself. Else, he would degrade himself.

Class character of ego and superego

We know that all mental faculties, including ego, instinct etc., exist in
contradiction. This ego or instinct does not exist independent of the social
set-up. The principal contradiction in a particular society patterns the mental
make-up in that society. All thoughts and ideas are spiritual production --
manifestations of the functions of a conscious mind. When the principal
contradiction in the society was the fight of the serfs under the leadership of
the then revolutionary capitalist class against the feudal class, then that
particular contradiction patterned in a certain way the thoughts and ideas,
mental make-up, ego and instinct. But the mental make-up, ego and instinct that
exist in the present society are not exactly the same as those in the feudal
society. Instincts sometimes appear to be immutable, but indeed they are not.
Every instinct has a given category, has a certain framework, and a given
material condition stipulates that framework.

Every aspect of mental activity -- thoughts, ideas, concepts, contemplations
-- grows out of contradiction and conflict between the human brain and the
external objective reality. Human brain has the power of analysing which the
animal brain does not have. Because human brain has this power of analysis, his
world of thought evolves out of struggle with nature. Animals too are in
struggle with nature, but as their brain lacks this power they are merely
subject to natural law. All the activities and behaviour of animals belong to
the category of reflex action, are controlled by conditioned and unconditioned
reflexes. Whatever one may think of their intelligence it is nothing but varied
forms of conditioned reflex. But in human beings another process occurs in the
brain. The process does not end with reflex action -- from sensation to motor
action. It follows a new track operated by another signal system, the second
signal system, leading to perception, conception and then to emotion. While
animals have only physical blind emotion, that is emotional nervous activity is
the only possible activity in them, in man emotional activity operates on a
higher plane -- from blind emotion to reasoning through a process of
translation, from perceptual knowledge to conceptual knowledge, finally leading
to a higher kind of emotion.

Thus in man there are two kinds of emotion. One is a type of blind emotion,
which is not tuned or guided by reason or conceptual knowledge. When such blind
emotion directs human activity, human behaviour is somewhat like animal
behaviour, he is then subject to nature, subject to external environment. Such
blind emotion may suddenly elevate a man to a higher plane, it may also degrade
him some day. Because it is blind it cannot be depended upon. The perceptual
knowledge that grows from this blind emotion through the process of translation
is superficial. One cannot fully control the emotional curvature through such
knowledge alone. From this is born conceptual knowledge in man, that is concrete
knowledge, which is capable of providing guidance. Such concrete knowledge alone
patterns and tunes blind emotion. Thus, the emotion so released is one released
by consciousness, by knowledge. The emotion one sees in the revolutionaries is
emotion based on consciousness. So they can exercise control over it. Such
emotion does not misdirect them, does not cloud their intelligence and
judgement. The emotion which does cloud is blind emotion. Emotion based on
knowledge or reason is much more effective than blind emotion, much more
decisive.

Naturally, in the capitalist society also, all ideas and thoughts -- be it
ego or something else -- revolve around and are controlled by the principal
contradiction in the capitalist society, the contradiction between the
capitalist class and the exploited people led by the working class. In each
individual his ego is in perpetual conflict with his superego, that is his
consciousness or conscience. Even in a bourgeois individual there is
contradiction between ego and superego. His ego is the self-centredness born in
the social environment, and his superego is the desire related to the aggregate
interest of capitalism, which makes him a nationalist and a humanist. This is
the contradiction between ego and superego within himself. In other words, what
is found in an individual capitalist is that, on the one hand, he has his
business interest, on the other, he has his sense of aggregate interest of the
bourgeois class -- in his case this is the manifestation of the contradiction
between ego and superego. When a worker, who exists amidst the contradiction
between the capitalist class and the working class, is imbued with revolutionary
ideology, his superego takes the form of revolutionary class consciousness. Just
because he exists in the bourgeois society, the superego of every worker does
not take the form of revolutionary consciousness -- though in everyone there is
contradiction between ego and superego. There is contradiction between
conscience and instincts, between ego and superego even in an individual who has
not become a revolutionary ; he also has an understanding of what is good and
what is bad. A part of his mind tells him to do one thing, another part tells
him that it is bad, it should not be done. This tendency to do something which
his conscience forbids him to do, arises from his instincts, his ego. And his
social consciousness, to the extent he has acquired it, which forbids him to do
what is bad is his superego or conscience.

If we analyse the category of social consciousness of individuals in the
society, we shall find that in some it is wholly bourgeois class thinking, in
others it is dominantly revolutionary working class thinking, while in still
others it is an admixture of the two, that is their conscience is patterned
partly by bourgeois thinking, partly by working class thinking. The conscience
of one, who is influenced partly by the bourgeois thoughts and partly by the
revolutionary thoughts of the working class, urges him sometimes to take side
with the bourgeoisie, sometimes to stand by the working class. But all the time
everybody's conscience forbids his ego or self-interest to do a bad deed. So in
every individual there is constant contradiction between ego and superego and it
would always exist. Till the seeds of conflict between individuals centring
round production are totally eliminated from the social life, individual
psychology or this phenomenon of individuality will not be eliminated. In
today's capitalist society the individual ego in every case is by and large
patterned by the dominating role of either the bourgeois ideology or working
class ideology. Even if there is some feudal element of thinking mixed with it,
the character of individual ego is determined by its dominant feature -- whether
it is dominantly bourgeois ideology or dominantly working class ideology. Today
there is no way one can carry on with feudal ideology in its totality.

Therefore, an individual's struggle to rise above petty considerations of
self-interest, individualistic tendencies, egoism and such other traits can
never achieve its desired objectives, no matter how sincere his intentions are,
unless it is linked with the greater social struggle, the working class struggle
for emancipation. So individual struggle must be integrated with the collective
struggle. But to guide this collective struggle along the correct course and to
keep it free from mistakes and shortcomings, there must be a definite scientific
method about it. So comrades have to free themselves of the casual and lax
attitude found in them when they carry out routine work being deeply involved
with the masses while staying with them, and you have to heighten the tempo of
your work, and at the same time do it in a planned way. If the tempo of work
becomes fast, but there is no plan behind it, that would not serve any purpose.
You may do something hastily, but if it is done without collective planning,
without an ideological base, nothing would be achieved. You would only waste
your time. My concern is not how rapidly you are advancing in your work. My
point is that you may move slowly or rapidly according to your ability, but move
in a planned way and under an able leadership. You have to move curbing the
individualistic tendency present in each of us, and tempering and tuning your
individual behaviour by social consciousness.

If you proceed by implementing the party programmes in a planned way, under
proper leadership, and at the same time collectively discuss the faults and
endeavour to get rid of them and improve your work, you would be able to put
your organization on a firm basis according to the necessity. But it would be a
negative approach if you constantly hammer on the defects and complain that
nothing is being achieved. It would mean that you are criticizing not with the
purpose of doing something concrete, but for concealing the fact that you are
not doing anything. You should know that the science of Marxism has laid down
certain methods for determining the character of your criticisms. When there is
only negative criticism, when grievance is the vehicle of your negative
criticism, that is, when you do not say concretely what the party has to reject,
and what it has to accept, but go on complaining and expressing grievance that
this is not being done, that is not being done and so on and so forth, it would
mean that when your inability to do anything becomes known, you try to find an
excuse for it in others' faults.

Those who think in this way must ponder what they themselves have achieved,
or if the party has any fault, what is that fault, or if the party has to take
up a programme, what is that programme. This is what they should consider. There
is no point to feel aggrieved, no point for any dissatisfaction or mental
turmoil. The only point of dissatisfaction they may have is that they are not
satisfied with their own work. Everything else stems from their ego which is
deceiving them ; they are putting the blame for their inability on the party's
plan or on the concerned leadership. Maybe sometimes these are also important
points, but then they should come as concrete points. That is, they should tell
concretely what particular plan should have been taken which was not done or
which particular plan of a leader has failed, and that experience shows that the
work could have been done successfully in this particular way. But those who
express grievance, or criticize or pass critical remarks, or show discontent, do
they discuss raising such concrete points ? They do not. Again there are some
comrades who discover, when they cannot make a breakthrough in their locality,
that their locality is something special, a place of unusual difficulties. They
think that no other locality is like theirs and they argue that they cannot
achieve much because the situation is very adverse. That is, they try to find an
excuse for their inability in the objective situation. Thereby they are not
trying to grasp the basic point and are deceiving themselves. They do not try to
determine what they should have done but have failed to do. Had they grasped
this they would have realized that even amidst thousands of such difficulties,
they could have achieved something. Hence, every worker should discuss in this
fashion. They should first analyse what was their task which they have not done,
and what are their defects.

The same applies to the leaders. When a comrade has failed to carry out a
task, the leader should first examine what steps he did take to ensure that the
comrade could carry out the assignment to the best of his abilities, and how the
leader has helped the comrade in this matter. This is what the leader should do
on his part : firstly, he should ascertain whether the assistance from his side
was adequate ; and then he should examine the limitations of the comrade for
which he has failed and explain to him the nature of the objective difficulties.
If, even after all this, it is found that the comrade had not done what he ought
to have, then that should be pointed out to him. But the leaders do not always
do this. Often, if a comrade fails to perform his task, the leader immediately
considers him to be worthless and metes out rough treatment to him. On the part
of the leaders it is a clear manifestation of that tendency, which in a very
subtle manner works in his sub-consciousness of disowning his responsibility in
so far as his task to equip a cadre in discharging his responsibility is
concerned -- the realization of which again eludes the leader. This is not to
say that the failures of the comrades are due to the faults of the leaders. My
point is that if the leaders had no shortcomings, then why is it that they do
not have the correct approach in this matter, and why do they become so
attacking towards the comrades from the very beginning ?

The leaders should keep in mind another point. Not all the party comrades and
supporters belong to the same level. So far as the defects and deficiencies of
the cadres are concerned, these are of different nature. They have to be tackled
with correct understanding of their types. So, without considering the
particularity of the types of different workers, if they try to tackle them all
with the same formula, it would be a denial of the theory of particularity of
contradiction. It often happens with an honest party worker even, that because
of some genuine confusions and shortcomings -- about which he is not alert or
even being alert he is a victim of certain habits and traits -- he cannot get
rid of these, in spite of his trying. In such cases the leaders should try
patiently and repeatedly to help the comrade overcome his shortcomings for a
certain period. Where he is incapable or fails -- where it is known somewhat,
that he is incapable -- the main task of the leaders is to help him with
sympathy rather than to be furious with him. Again leaders are to bear in mind
that the sympathetic treatment and help is not to be attempted on the basis of
the exclusive individual thinking of a leader quite out of the party thinking or
party approach. The particular problem, depending on its form and character, can
be discussed in study circles in the presence of other comrades, or among the
leaders or among selected comrades. Everything cannot be discussed everywhere,
but each and every issue must be discussed in presence of some appropriate
persons. It is to be seen that this individual tackling is never attempted
simply on the basis of a leader's individual assessment. Obviously, the way he
tries to tackle the problem must be in accordance with the party's theory and
practice. In other words his method of tackling a comrade must be one that is
scientifically tested by the party. At the same time it is to be understood that
in such tackling something of the individual is also present within it ; it is
his own part ; he is doing something in his own way. But it must be borne in
mind that tackling of such problems cannot be a matter of individual thinking,
or the way of doing things of a leader who is totally out of touch with the
party theory and party realization in this regard. Even if such individual
tackling yields apparently good results, this is not to be done. Because
apparent good results do not necessarily mean truly and ultimately good results.
If a leader tries to solve a problem in this way thinking that good results are
obtained, in the end the effects are most of the times harmful. This is the
experience of the party. Even if the comrade who has been tackled becomes very
happy, all the same, this does not by itself prove that the tackling has been
proper and good. Because people feel satisfied for many reasons. Suppose a
person has done something improper or has behaved badly. If someone in the name
of tackling that person, through his words and dealings effectively patronizes
his improper act or conduct in a subtle way he may be satisfied, but would it
mean that the problem has been solved ? What would be the result of his
happiness ? It would do him immense harm. So, causing unhappiness does not mean
that the tackling has been bad, just as causing happiness does not mean that it
has been good -- the matter is not like that at all. But one sign of good
tackling, that is, successful tackling, is that the comrade, even if he feels
unhappy in the beginning, will at the end of the discussion be happy and
satisfied. If someone seems aggrieved, unhappy and not amenable to reason at the
beginning of the discussion, it would mean that his ego is in conflict with the
party understanding. When, in course of discussion, in the end he truly
understands through reasoning he feels happy and satisfied. Again it sometimes
happens that he may accept the logic of the point, but is not happy ; he agrees
to what is said but happiness is not writ large on his face, he is not beaming
with smile, he leaves with a sad, grave mien. It would indicate that he who has
done the tackling has partly succeeded and partly failed.

I am saying all these to emphasize what the leaders should keep in mind to do
the tackling with perfection. If, without being furious and impatient, a leader
tries to rationally understand another comrade's viewpoint, he would understand
where the comrade is erring and can also make him see his mistake. And remember
another point -- if he can make him see his mistake this would also help the
leader to keep himself free from committing mistakes. Dialectical materialism
teaches that without struggle no progress can be achieved. If there is no
interaction and conflict of ideas between leaders and cadres, neither the
leaders nor the cadres can advance.

Call of the hour

Comrades, though the situation may appear to be a bit tough for us at the
present moment, revolutionaries are aware that they have to work amidst thousand
and one such impediments and difficulties. However, odds and difficulties
notwithstanding the correct base political line, correct revolutionary
leadership and painstaking struggle would lead to the final victory of
revolution. This is the lesson of history. Keeping this lesson in mind, you have
to patiently plan and carry out the work, individually as well as collectively,
continuously trying to perfect and develop your working style by rectifying
errors and shortcomings. You will have to master the revolutionary politics of
the party, every facet of it, and in such a way that in any situation you can
correctly present the party line before the masses, can convince them about its
correctness, and firmly implant in them hope and confidence about the
revolutionary party, exposing the opportunist and social democratic parties who
are still confusing the people. These social democratic parties are the forces
of compromise between labour and capital ; and you all know that it is
impossible to put an end to capitalism without putting and end to social
democracy. To fulfil the task that is historically bestowed on us -- to
overthrow capitalism and to establish socialism -- it is necessary first of all
to have a correct base political line ; secondly, to muster the necessary
organizational strength capable of influencing the situation in favour of
revolution ; and thirdly to integrate the class and mass struggles on the
edifice of higher proletarian culture and ethics, and to conduct these struggles
through people's committees, the people's own instruments of struggles, in such
a way that these people's committees can eventually give birth to people's
alternative political power. The sooner you can achieve this, by remaining
within the United Front and advancing the cause of united struggle of all
sections of the toiling people on the one hand, carrying out sustained
ideological struggle on the other, the sooner and to that extent the further you
could help to raise the political consciousness of the toiling people, workers
and peasants. The sooner you can achieve this, the nearer will draw the day of
revolution. With this I want to conclude today with the earnest hope that you
will seriously take up this challenge and engage yourselves with all your might
in this struggle.